Palace Group Rules Shenanigans

[cynthial]

Poor Vortran. He is going to need some new glasses.

[chuchu59]

Thought this needed a little better exposure, 32Red What else can be said about this STELLAR Operation !! A true CLASS Act!!



MASSIVE, absolutey MASSIVE respect to 32Red who after about ten posts into the thread messaged me privately and offered to pay the difference in full if Spin Palace did not pay out as a gesture of goodwill and to restore my (and your) faith in the online casino industry. Ill tell you what, it did!

The offer from 32RED is truly amazing but wrong imo. This should fall fully on Spin Palace's lap and failing that MG who licensed Spin Palace. Ecogra should also take a hard look at whether they should take a broader definition of the terms than just looking at the surface.

Having said that, I tend to believe this was a tactical ploy to coax Spin Palace into doing the right thing. Probably they got wind of this. We need casinos like 32RED to preserve the integrity of online operators so though I dont agree with their generous offer a big thumbs up for achieving the desired result.

[sickdoctor]

The offer from 32RED is truly amazing but wrong imo. This should fall fully on Spin Palace's lap and failing that MG who licensed Spin Palace. Ecogra should also take a hard look at whether they should take a broader definition of the terms than just looking at the surface.

Having said that, I tend to believe this was a tactical ploy to coax Spin Palace into doing the right thing. Probably they got wind of this. We need casinos like 32RED to preserve the integrity of online operators so though I dont agree with their generous offer a big thumbs up for achieving the desired result.

WOW THATS F**** AWSOME

WAY TO GO 32

[vinylweatherman]

Don't forget that B's first move once this issue came to light was to remove the casino from the accredited list pending a revision of the Term.

So does CM accreditation GUARANTEE that everything at the the casino is perfect? No.

Does CM accreditation mean that B has screened the place and decided they look trustworthy? Yes.

Does B stand behind the accreditation and re-evaluate it based on new info that comes to light? Yes.

Is that what accreditation is supposed to be about? Yes.

Seems to me the process is working nicely and as expected.

As to the OP's claim that nobody here thinks they have been treated fairly I would suggest they go back and re-read the posts in this thread. I believe what several people have said is (a) you agreed to the Terms and should therefore be subject to them, (b) the Term was crappy and should be changed, by this casino or any other that uses such a clause.

Finally as to this "players should not be expected to understand the Terms" idea I would respectfully point out that the vast majority of casino Terms are not written in legalese but are in fact written to be read and understood by mere mortals, and players.

Why do I say this? Because we often make PAB decisions based on a "reasonable" interpretation of the Terms as written yet we are not trained in legalese. If we can figure them out the players surely can. And should.

Like I said before, you get what you settle for. If that means you settle for Terms you don't understand then you can expect surprises down the road. Is that good? No, certainly not. Is it the casinos fault that you say "yes" when what you really mean is "whatever, just let me play". No, certainly not.

Let's be realistic here. No one is advocating that players should, as a matter of course, be crucified by unreasonable Terms. Many times in the past we've gone back to casinos and said "your Terms suck and you should change them". Some do, some don't. Some get Warnings posted because of the crappy Terms they adopt.

That said the time for players to raise objections is BEFORE they are being nailed up on the boards, not during or after. Is that always possible? No, but that doesn't mean it isn't something to strive for. And the first step of that process is, "hello!", reading the damn things!

I didn't notice the temporary removal from the CM list pending a revision.
The OP seems to have made a "reasonable interpretation" that this rule was to be applied to the original starting balance.

I was thinking that some players might see a casino is accredited, and therefore not pay as much attention as they should to the terms and conditions.

Legalese vs plain English is a problem I see often. It is not helped by the terms just being SO LENGHTY, and padded out with what for the majority of players are irrelevancies, such as "you agree not to decompile, reverse engineer, etc....." This is "Geek Speak", as is the way they define what is meant by "Multiple accounts". Most "users" of computers do not really understand what this is all about, and if this kind of thing is at the top of a long list of terms, they may just stop reading there.

I have to agree that BONUS terms tend to be more in plain English, but as this case has shown, if not all that well, is that even reading and understanding the rules is no protection against the "at our discretion" clauses.

This player cetainly did not break the LITERAL and "reasonable interpretation" of this rule about the size of the LAST bet, but he sure pushed the boundaries with the overall 3 card poker strategy.

It does seem that this, and other recent cases, has opened discussions about a review of what terms can be considered "fair".

What CM is doing now is only what we Brits have had as a consumer right for YEARS. Under CONSUMER contract law, even if we agree to an unfair term, it can be struck out later as "unfair" by the courts, or the regulators. This is a right lacking in the online casino industry, and it is only by negotiation, PABs, and player pressure, that these unfair terms are removed for FUTURE players.

Shafting the UK consumer has cost some businesses MILLIONS of pounds once the courts have started ruling terms as being "unfair", since such a ruling means that the term is struck out of the contract, and the contract is then deemed to consist of the remaining terms.

[Slotster!]

I have recently been 'courted' once again by the Palace Group after drifting away over the last couple of years; I was waiting for this thread to conclude before making any deposits/giving them another try.

Talk about how to put someone in a difficult situation... Jeez... I'm not the brightest at the best of times.

a) It seems The Palace Group are as much on the level as they've always been, and coming through to do the right thing. They were always great with me

b) It seems where I'm playing MG at the minute (somethingsomething RED) are still setting the standard and then going over and above it.

Damn you all; why is life so complicated!?!?

I'm going to fire up Intercasino and Blue Square to be on the safe side

[greedygirl]

I don't ever recall a thread that represented a forum such as Casinomeister better than this.

The OP calmly states his case, members voice their opinions objectively (without the usual slag-fest, name-calling and derails) and CM and Max do their part. All with not only the player being paid, but an unfair term being overturned and changed. Of course there was a bit of drama throughout, but it was all sorted out with the best possible ending.

I'd like to give extreme kudos to Gigeanth, who throughout this whole ordeal remained adult, composed and sincere. I think we've all been cheering Gigeanth on--not just because the situation seemed so unfair, but also because he just seems to be such a decent guy. Proven further by his desire to donate to a CM charity (too few PABsters ever donate, dammit!).

Congrats to everyone from Gigeanth to CM and Max to the casinos involved and of course the forum community.

[vinylweatherman]

I am pleased that this had a happy ending, and opened a wider review and discussion on fairness.

32Red may have made a rod for their own back here, other players are now likely to expect the same treatment, and 32Red simply cannot afford to do this. I think 32Red didn't expect this offer to be made public, but now that it has, it will have done a great deal of good for their reputation, which might help fund other offers of this nature they feel like making. I am sure I read elsewhere on this forum about 32Red making good on a "shafting" of a player by a competitor, but not to the tune of 2K+

What is REALLY surprising though, is that Spin Palace have NOT removed this "advantage player" from their promotions list after making this grudging payment under pressure & review, but has even started offering him more. I would have expected a casino so convinced they had a "bonus abuser" on their books to ensure this player never had another opportunity to repeat this excercise, either with a reload bonus, or new player bonus at a sister site. Don't forget, what this player did is now ALLOWED under the revised terms (barring the "FU clause").

[gingeanth89]

which Don't forget, what this player did is now ALLOWED under the revised terms (barring the "FU clause").

Eh? I thought under the new rules I was allowed to do what I did and thats why I got paid. Here we go, back to square one. How on Earth is anyone expected to understand these rules when a bunch of inveterate gamblers who know the ropes cant agree?

[vinylweatherman]

Eh? I thought under the new rules I was allowed to do what I did and thats why I got paid. Here we go, back to square one. How on Earth is anyone expected to understand these rules when a bunch of inveterate gamblers who know the ropes cant agree?

We ARE in agreement. The inconsistency is in the way Palace Group first treat you like a "bonus abuser", pay out after heated discussions, and now seem happy for you to "abuse" even MORE bonuses under the revised rules.

More usually, these cases end in a grudging payment to a player the casino does not want, but said player then finds themselves excluded from all future promotions until they "prove themselves", perhaps by depositing and playing without bonuses.

I doubt the 32Red offer had anything to do with it, since this became public after Palace Group decided to make payment. 32Red seem to have a great deal of faith in your integrity too, since they made such a generous offer to you.
You don't say (or I missed) whether you already have a 32Red account, or whether they made this offer blindly, not knowing what kind of player you were.

[Cassa]

Good news! Congrats to all!